The principle of consent is an ethical and legal one. If the agreement is to be morally valid, it must be freely made (not forced), and have been fully understood with regard to its implications. However, when a driver turns their ignition key in the keyhole of their car in the state of Georgia, he or she has already given up an incredible amount of control of his or her body. Such a legal construct is called implied consent, and it raises one of the most troubling philosophical quandaries in today’s criminal justice system.
Georgia law says that you have already agreed to be chemically tested, either of your breath, blood or urine, by state officials if you are arrested for suspected impaired driving if you operate a motor vehicle on public roads. The issue of ethics occurs when an officer reads the statutory warning at the roadside. It appears as if the driver is offered an opportunity to take the test or decline it. Looking at the punitive aspects of a refusal though, however, shows that it is an illusion, really.
When the driver refuses to submit to a chemical test, the state immediately retaliates against the driver by suspending their driving privileges for at least a year; the driver may not be eligible for a limited license. It is an administrative punishment that is imposed prior to any person having entered a criminal courtroom and proven guilt of any crime. Of course, there’s the philosophical question: how can consent be valid if the alternative is the instant loss of the person’s ability to commute to work, take care of their family and join the modern world?
If the choice is forced due to the risk of “grave, imminent suffering” it no longer constitutes consent, but is rather a step too close to coercion. The state says that driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right and that it can impose any conditions it chooses for the safety of the public. In an overly developed, car-centric metro region, though, driving is almost a prerequisite for any job or mobility freedom. To force people to give up their rights to be protected from unreasonable searches just because they chose to drive down a public road.
When considering how the warning is administered by the police, it is even more complicated to determine the ethics of implied consent. It’s posted on a highway, frequently at night, to a driver in the midst of the deepest psychological stress—handcuffed and arrested. The legal text is “down in the weeds” and many people don’t understand that they are making a final legal decision that will set off two legal proceedings, an administrative and a criminal one. Even if a driver was not actually drunk, they may refuse a test because they were frightened, and then find out that they’ve lost their driving privileges for an entire year!
This power imbalance is the reason it’s imperative to have an Atlanta DUI Lawyer the instant you are arrested. The system is meant to send the accused into a procedural labyrinth in which he or she is channeled into a continuous denial of rights. The driver has only 30 days after arrest to formally request an administrative hearing or to get an ignition interlock device to avoid automatic license suspension. The suspension will become permanent if the deadline is missed by just one day.
James Yeargan knows these same cases like the back of his own hand and is well versed in the complex legal framework of the implied consent warning. He is aware that the state is trying to avoid complying with the normal standard protections in the constitution, and so the warning will need to be read with absolute accuracy by the arresting officer. The illusion of consent is entirely broken if the officer reads the script wrong, provides unauthorized legal advice, or does not properly communicate the consequences. In these cases, the refusal or problematic chemical test results can be challenged and suppressed.
In defending a suspension for implied consent, the state’s actions must be subjected to a “scrutineous examination. The video from the body camera will be thoroughly examined by an effective Atlanta DUI Lawyer, and he or she will question the initial probable cause for the arrest, as well as demand that strict procedural standards are followed. The only ethical countermeasure to a state’s use of the threat of a suspended license in order to get a search warrant for your body is to fight hard.
Implied consent is part of a larger social attitude to giving up some freedom for the assurance of security. But we must continually ask the question, however, of the moral price of that exchange. Drivers will remain the “objects” of a coerced system until the law recognizes the real meaning of voluntary consent: to give control of their bodies to others at the edge of the road.
